<br /> <br /> By Sri. K Gheevarghese, President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The gist of the complaint is as follows<br /> <br /> The Complainant is the RC owner of a goods carriage No. KL 12B 8066. The vehicle was insured in the relevant period commencing from 26.6.2006 to 25.6.2007 and the vehicle had the endorsement for carrying hazardous goods. On 26.6.2006 at 10 PM when the vehicle was taken for parking, it met with an accident. The claim of the Complainant was <br /> repudiated by the Opposite Party on the ground that the driver has no valid license to <br /> Contd.....2)<br /> 2<br /> <br /> drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods. The accident met with when the vehicle was plied empty and more over it was during the time when the vehicle was not used to transport hazards goods. A lawyer notice was sent to the Opposite Party and it was replied with baseless grounds. The repudiation of claim by the Opposite Party is a deficiency in service. There maybe an order directing the Opposite Party to give Complainant Rs. 10,000/- in the way of damages, mental agony Rs.2,000/- and towards cost Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> 2. The Opposite Party filed version. The repudiation of the claim is admitted and the vehicle was insured during the relevant period. The vehicle KL 12B 8066 is permitted under the motor vehicle rules to carry Hazardous goods. The driver who drove the vehicle had no such endorsement to drive the vehicle carrying hazards goods. It is against the terms and conditions envisaged in the policy hence the Opposite Party is absolved from the liability. As per the policy conditions the driver is to be having proper and valid driving license. Apart from the valid and proper license endorsement for driving the vehicle carrying hazardous goods is also required. The policy is issued in accordance with provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. 1988 and subsequent amendment. If any violation effected the company is not responsible to meet the risk covered and beyond that immediately after the accident, the vehicle was shifted from the location without giving any chance to the opposite party for the spot survey. In reply to the lawyer notice the Opposite Party stated it in detail. The Complainant is not entitled to get the compensation Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and for other loss Rs.2,000/-, and Rs.500/- towards cost. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.<br /> Contd.....3) <br /> <br /> 3.<br /> 3. The points in consideration are:<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?.<br /> 2.Relief and cost.<br /> <br /> 4. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit . Ext. A1 to A6 are marked to substantiate the evidence of the Complainant. The Opposite Party swear their contention in affidavit Ext.B1 and B2 are marked to establish their case. The case of the complainant is that the goods carriage owned by the Complainant met with an accident. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the person who drove the vehicle at it had no endorsement in the license to drive the vehicle having the permit for transporting hazardous goods. According to the Opposite Party the vehicle met with an accident and it was driven by the person who had no valid lisence . The terms applied with the policy conditions were not kept up. The repudiation of the claim is as per the rules and regulations of the provisions. <br /> <br /> 5. The RC owner of the vehicle is the Complainant in this particular case. According to the Complainant the vehicle was driven by one Ashokan one of his drivers when the vehicle met with the accident. It is admitted that this driver had no endordement in license to drive the vehicle having permit to transport hazards goods. The vehicle met with an accident at 10 PM beyond the period scheduled for the supply of gas cylinders. The allegation of the Complainant is that the particular vehicle which was free from carrying gas cylinders was driven by the driver to the parking place. Ext.A3 is the notice sent to the Complainant repudiating the claim. The reason for repudiation of claim is “the driver was not having valid license to drive the particular type of vehicle”. The photo copy of the goods carriage permit is Ext.A6 which is <br /> Contd........4)<br /> <br /> 4<br /> <br /> having endorsement that the vehicle is having the permit to carry hazards goods. The learned counsel appearing for the Complainant produced the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Baghelkhand Filling Station and others V/S Brijbhan Prasad and others (2006 ACJ 2503). The Hon'ble High Court in the particular case held that the endorsement in the driving license to drive the goods carriage of hazards goods does not require any special skill of driving or any expertise. The endorsement neither increase the efficiency of the driver nor in its absence reduce the efficiency for driving. No further expertise or driving skill is required for driving such a vehicle. The accident cannot be due to lack of expert and skill in the absence of endorsement. In the instant case the matter to be considered whether the driver who drove the vehicle has a license to drive heavy vehicle. But no license of the driver who drove the vehicle is produced in support of the contention of the Complainant that the driver had the license to drive the goods carriage. In the absence of the license to drive a goods carriage in evidence, the contention of the Opposite Party in repudiating the claim for the reason of having no valid license to drive the vehicle of particular type cannot be discarded, the point No.1 is found in favour of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had not done any deficiency service to the Complainant and point No.1 is found accordingly.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.2:- There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party a detail discussion of point No.2 is not necessary in this juncture. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order upon cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Contd.....5)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 5<br /> Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER-I : Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER-II: Sd/-<br /> /True copy/<br /> Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> APPENDIX:<br /> <br /> Witness examined for Complainant:<br /> PW1 M.S. Viswanathan Complainant<br /> Witness examined for Opposite parties;<br /> OPW1 Ravi P.P. Manager, National Insurance Co. Kalpetta.<br /> Exhibits marked for Complainant:<br /> A1 Series Lawyer notice Dt. 20.12.06, Postel receipt, AD card.<br /> A2 Reply notice Dt. 2.1.2007<br /> A3 Repudiation letter Dt. 22.11.2006<br /> A4 Photos of the Vehicle No Kl 12-B 8066<br /> A5 Copy of Insurance Certificate<br /> A6 Copy of goods carriage permit<br /> Exhibits marked for Opposite parties:<br /> B1 copy of letter<br /> B2 Copy of policy